|Poster:||larus||Date:||Sep 26, 2012 5:14am|
|Forum:||feature_films||Subject:||Re: I thought that this was good find.......anyone?|
Which is why 1950 has to be used as the starting point for the renewal window.
Mentions of different years in-notice were made by USCO personnel and were not issued from data filed by the registrant. USCO personnel compared data on the registration forms and notices on prints and added the "in notice: 19XX" remark in the registration data when they noticed a date discrepancy. For reference, an application form for DOA is shown on http://www.copyrightdata.com/chart/ch17.html, and you'll see there that claimants aren't asked to state the copyright notice on the form. Instead, it was up to USCO personnel to look up the notice from the prints supplied by the claimant and check for discrepancies.
Here, no discrepancy is revealed in the registration records, so either there was a 1950 in-notice date on the copies supplied to the USCO, or there was a 1949 in-notice date and for whatever reason USCO employees didn't double-check the copyright notice on the print. I don't know how likely the latter possibility is, but I'm mentioning it for completeness. The only way to know for sure would be to request the USCO to search its records, but they charge $165 per hour for that, with a minimum of two hours.
Whatever the reason is, the original registration makes no notice of an earlier in-notice date, so 1950 is the official registration year and has to be used to compute the renewal window:
CAGED. Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc.,
1950. 91 min., sd., b&w, 35mm. Warner
Brothers Pictures, Inc.; 22May50; LP126.
The only way this film is PD is if it can be proved that the film opened in theaters with prints showing a 1949 notice, and that Warner fooled the USCO by providing a special print with a 1950 notice to them. Unless you have access to one of the original 35mm prints, that's a tall undertaking.
Otherwise, if no mention of the 1949 year in-notice is made in the registration because of a USCO employee oversight, I doubt a judge would rule against Warner for filing a renewal consistent with the official registration year.
This post was modified by larus on 2012-09-26 12:14:52